Accident: A failure in a wind turbine caused a forest fire in Muros

La Voz de Galicia, 29 September 2006:

A failure in one of the wind turbines owned by the Iberdrola company in the Pedregal Mountains, Esteiro (Muros), resulted in a forest fire that razed a hectare of the mountain. When the flames started, the machine was functioning and the movement of its blades helped scatter sparks about the area, which brought the focus of the fire to an area replanted with pine trees.

Two brigades of the Department of the Environment, forest rangers, and a helicopter extinquished the fire in little time. The wind turbine was left very damaged and it is likely that it will have to be replaced.

wind power, wind energy, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

For a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of our energy: wind power!

At 20% "penetration," a typical goal (limited by the amount of excess capacity on the system that is free to balance the fluctuating wind load), wind energy would in theory replace only one forty-fifth of our energy.

Electricity accounts for roughly a third of all energy use, 20% wind would be a fifth of that third. (And that fifth requires four times the capacity of that actual output.) And the effective capacity (because of its variability) is yet a third of that output.

Even in theory, then, it is clearly an awfully destructive and expensive "alternative." In reality, it is even worse.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism

Impact of industrial wind on rural economy

From "UK Energy Policy: The Small Business Perspective & the Impact on the Rural Economy," researched and written by Candida Whitmill for, and on behalf of, the Small Business Council, February 2006 (revised June 2006) [available at wind-watch.org]:

[p. 1, Foreword]  The Small Business Council is a non-departmental public body established in May 2000 to advise the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service on the needs of existing and potential small businesses in order to help them succeed and prosper. Working with Ministers and Senior Policy makers, the Council advises and reports on the effects on small businesses of current and potential policies.

[p. 2, Executive Summary]  This study focuses attention on one particular area of potential impact in the United Kingdom, the impact on tourism, an area dominated by small businesses and of pivotal importance to the rural economy as a whole. Twenty-five percent of all registered businesses are in rural areas.

The rural visitor economy is worth £14 billion in England alone and supports up to 800,000 jobs. Research shows that for an average 75% of visitors, the quality of the landscape and countryside is the most important factor in choosing a destination. Between 47% and 75% of visitors felt that wind turbines damage the landscape quality. In North Devon turbines would deter 11% of visitors, at a cost of £29 million and the loss of 800 jobs. Approximately 7% of visitors would not return to Cumbria, which would result in a loss of £70 million and 1,753 jobs. In the South West, just a 5% overall reduction in visitor numbers would lose the region £400 million and 15,000 jobs. Because of the multiplier effect, a reduction of visitors can have farreaching consequences for the overall regional economy, a fact richly illustrated during the Foot and Mouth crisis. The evidence shows that in some areas, 49% of all sectors of rural businesses experienced a negative impact. [Full analysis, pp. 10-18]

We argue that the current trend towards high levels of wind energy development onshore presents an unacceptable threat to rural businesses and runs counter to almost all other aspects of Government policy relating to the rural economy. This has important implications when assessing the overall cost-benefit equation of the current renewable energy policy.

[p. 20]  Sustainable development, as defined by the Rural Strategy, is characterised by "integrating and balancing environmental, social and economic considerations at every stage." 41 Recognising its potentially negative impact on the environment, UK tourism has long embraced the ethos of sustainability. Today UK tourism is striving to be a role model for sustainable practices. Businesses are investing in energy efficiency, recycling and local purchasing. Many are gaining international accreditation through sustainable programmes such as the Green Business Tourism Scheme. Local partnerships are operating visitor payback schemes that include visitors as stakeholders in reinvesting back into the conservation of the environment they enjoy. It is in the industry's interest to maintain and improve the environment and to contribute to the economic and social stability of local communities.

This symbiosis represents the greatest prospect of achieving the Rural Strategy 2004 goals and the Government's sustainability agenda. In contrast, the current onshore wind policy is at odds with the concept of sustainability. For the majority of onshore wind developments, the environmental costs are local and the benefits are invariably taken or delivered outside the region. In the most striking cases, a large-scale wind farm may be entirely financed by overseas investors, using imported equipment and a team of specialist contractors to oversee the installation. Once operating no one is employed on the site and the income and profits from the Renewables Obligation scheme are repatriated back to the investor country.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms

The End of the U.S. as a Civilized Nation

Ted Rall has put the new legalization of torture and elimination of habeas corpus for anyone the Führer deems his (sorry, "the people's") enemy into apt historical context (click the title of this post for the complete essay):

... Had there been the political will, Hitler and his goons could have been arrested and tried under German law. The German government was a lost cause, but the German nation still had a (slim) chance. Until 1935.

That's when Germany officially codified the Nazis' uncivilized anti-Semitism by passing the Nuremberg Laws. Jews were stripped of citizenship and banned from marrying or dating non-Jews. The laws were a form of legalized harassment, prohibiting Jews from displaying German flags or shopping in stores at certain times. ... the barbaric ipso facto policies of the Nazi government had corrupted Germany's lofty and admirable system of legal guarantees. ... Germany was no longer a civilized nation in the clutches of gangsters. It had become a gangster nation.

Similarly, the recently passed Military Commissions Act [MCA] removes the United States from the ranks of civilized nations. It codifies racial and political discrimination, legalizes kidnapping and torture of those the government deems its political enemies, and eliminates habeas corpus -- the ancient precept that prevents the police from arresting and holding you without cause -- a basic protection common to all (other) modern legal systems, and one that dates to the Magna Carta.

Between 2001 and 2006, George W. Bush worked tirelessly to eliminate freedoms and liberties Americans have long taken for granted. The Bush Administration's CIA, mercenary and military state terrorists kidnapped thousands of innocent people and held them at secret prisons around the world for months and years at a time. These people were never charged with a crime. (There was good reason for that. As the government itself admitted, fewer than ten had actually done anything wrong.) Yet hundreds, maybe even thousands, were tortured.

Under American law these despicable acts were illegal. They were, by definition, un-American. Although it didn't help the dozens of Bush torture victims who died from beatings and drowning, the pre-Bush American judicial system worked. The Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court handed down one decision after another ordering the White House to give its "detainees" trials or let them go. For a brief, shining moment, it looked like there was hope for the U.S. to find its way back to the light.

Now, thanks to a gullible passel of Republican senators and an unhinged leader who is banking that Americans are just as passive as the Germans of the mid-1930s, we have our own Nuremberg Laws.

Under the terrifying terms of the radical new Military Commissions Act, Bush can declare anyone -- including you -- an "unlawful enemy combatant," a term that doesn't exist in U.S. or international law. All he has to do is sign a piece of paper claiming that you "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." The law's language is brilliantly vague, allowing the president to imprison -- for the rest of his or her life -- anyone, including a U.S. citizen, from someone who makes a contribution to a group he disapproves of to a journalist who criticizes the government.

[Partner to the MCA is AETA, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, with vague enough language to brand as a terrorist (i.e., "unlawful enemy combatant") anyone handing out flyers in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken or publicizing the abuse of elephants in the circus or even advocating vegetarianism -- any activity that cuts into the profits from animal abuse and slaughter is a threat to the nation. The AETA bills are still in committee: check the status of H.R.4239 here and S.1926 here.]

McCourt for Governor of New York

From an interview with Malachy McCourt, Green Party candidate for governor of New York, by Clyde Haberman in the Oct. 10 New York Times:

“The inculcation of fear is the essence of American politics,” Mr. McCourt said. “Fear and the evil of your opponents – what awful, dreadful, less-than-human beings they are, until elected. Then they say, ‘We have to get behind them.’”

A vote against voting

Last month, Noel Ignatiev wrote an excellent essay for Counterpunch on the stupidity of "progressives" voting for the lesser evil that Democrats represent. Click the title of this post to read it.

[O]ne difference between Republican and Democratic voters is that the former hope their candidates mean what they say while the latter hope their candidates do not mean what they say.

Hull benefits from REC sales not wind energy

To the editor, Boston Globe:

Although the wind turbines in Hull may generate electricity equivalent to 12% of the town's total electricity consumption (editorial, Oct. 1), that is unlikely to be the amount actually used.

Because the turbines' level of generation is in response to the wind rather than consumer demand, it would more often than not be well out of sync with the town's needs. Consequently, Hull's municipal utility -- without large-scale storage of the wind-generated energy -- must still have to buy just about as much power from the regional grid as before.

The money they are "saving" appears to be in fact income from the sale of renewable energy credits to Harvard, who thereby also pretend to be using the same wind power.

wind power, wind energy

The twilight of industrial wind

Comment by Lyn Harrison, editor, Windpower Monthly, October 2006:

... witness the chaos in Spain caused by the sudden removal of the basis for wind power pricing, the overnight stop to the thriving wind market in the Netherlands, the fast approaching cliff-edge in Australia, Denmark's decline from role model to full-stop, and the perennial on-off market support in the US.

wind power, wind energy

E. coli in spinach comes from factory farms

A commentary in the New York Times last week explained that factory-farmed cows, whether for meat or for milk, are the source of the E. coli strain that is so dangerous to humans. The strain thrives in an acidic environment (thus it is not killed in our stomachs), which has been created in the cow digestive tract by the industrial feed they are given. Their manure is therefore teeming with this dangerous strain of E. coli, and the manure pollutes the water table, streams, and rivers. The water used to rinse vegetable greens is polluted by the unnatural shit from industrial animal "farms."

[Update:  Grass-fed cows become colonized with E. coli O157:H7 at same rates as grain-fed cattle.]

environment, environmentalism, animal rights, vegetarianism

Muir Trust warns of destruction of Scottish wild areas by wind power industry

The John Muir Trust believes

• Wild land should be conserved for nature and people for the benefit of present and future generations;


• Developments on core wild land, such as industrial-scale wind developments, are a major threat to our rapidly diminishing wild land;


• The best renewable energy options around wild land are small-scale, sensitively sited and adjacent to the communities directly benefiting from them, where the landscape impact is minimal;


• Large wind turbines, often 120 metres high (taller than the Forth Rail Bridge) grouped in clusters of up to 100, are totally unsuitable for Scotland’s finest landscapes;


• The intrusion is not just the turbines and pylons, but includes the access roads, concrete bases, and underground cables;


• Producing energy near to where it is consumed reduces the need for giant pylons through wild and scenic areas e.g. the proposed Beauly – Denny transmission upgrade;


• A recent study suggests far more eagles are at risk from wind developments than was previously thought so their habitat must be protected;


• It would be a tragedy to sacrifice wild land to major industrial developments.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, Scotland

Va. Dept. of Game and Inland Fisheries lays out wildlife case against wind power facility

As quoted at National Wind Watch (click the title of this post), where the entire letter is available:

"We feel this project presents an unacceptable risk to wildlife. We are particularly concerned with potential significant adverse impacts upon bats and birds. ... This project, and the conditions imposed by the State Corporation Commission, will set a precedent for all future wind energy projects in Virginia. Wind farms cannot be viewed as independent with regard to impacts upon wide-ranging migratory animals. We currently lack sufficient knowledge to absolutely determine the maximum fatality rates that can be tolerated at a given site without unacceptably impacting local or regional populations of sensitive species; but we are certain that high fatality rates at multiple sites across the landscape would pose an unacceptable risk, as do unmitigated fatalities of Endangered or Threatened species. ... In the case of this project, where wildlife losses potentially could be very substantial and significant, we must take a conservative approach to assessing risk and designing appropriate mitigation. The data needs for pre- and post-construction evaluation, monitoring, and mitigation should not be dictated by project applicants or consultants .... High fatality rates at this site would particularly be devastating to bats because of their reproductive strategy, which is atypical of a small mammal. ... They have small litters (typically one or two young), only one litter per year, and life expectancy of 12-15 years. With this strategy, the impact of the loss of individuals is much greater, especially within small populations. ... In addition to bats, we are concerned over potential eagle fatalities at this site. ... We have recommended that the applicant consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning potential take of federal Endangered or Threatened species. We cannot authorize take of federally listed species. The applicant’s consultants have downplayed the potential for such take but, in our opinion, the evidence suggests a strong likelihood of take."

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism, animal rights

Bluff and bluster of wind supporters

A recent post on the National Forum of Australia (click the title):

One of the things that stands out about wind is its apparent inability to replace other sources. That is a big shortcoming. At least other sources -- renewable and otherwise -- produce useful electricity for the grid, so there is something against which to weigh the costs. As for the growth of the wind energy business, religious fundamentalism is growing around the world, too. That in itself does not make it right or true. The fact of the issue at hand is that the industry has yet to show any evidence of actual benefit from wind power on the grid. Their massive erections seem more like the giant statues on Rapa Nui, a desperate but very wrongheaded effort to fend off environmental disaster.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, anarchism, ecoanarchism

Irish wind energy planning guidelines

This is from section 5.6 of recent (June 2006) planning guidelines for wind energy from the Irish Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

In general, a lower fixed limit of 45dB(A)10 or a maximum increase of 5dB(A) above background noise at nearby noise sensitive locations is considered appropriate to provide protection to wind energy development neighbours. However, in very quiet areas, the use of a margin of 5dB(A) above background noise at nearby noise sensitive properties is not necessary to offer a reasonable degree of protection and may unduly restrict wind energy developments which should be recognised as having wider national and global benefits. Instead, in low noise environments where background noise is less than 30dB(A), it is recommended that the daytime level of the LA90, 10min of the wind energy development noise be limited to an absolute level within the range of 35-40dB(A).

Separate noise limits should apply for day-time and for night-time. During the night the protection of external amenity becomes less important and the emphasis should be on preventing sleep disturbance. A fixed limit of 43dB(A) will protect sleep inside properties during the night.

In general, noise is unlikely to be a significant problem where the distance from the nearest turbine to any noise sensitive property is more than 500 metres. Planning authorities may seek evidence that the type(s) of turbines proposed will use best current engineering practice in terms of noise creation and suppression.

Note they distinguish quieter rural areas from more suburban (I guess) areas. The allowable range for the noisier areas is from 45 dB to 5 dB above ambient. Obviously, this presumes an ambient level of at least 40 dB.

In quieter places (ambient less than 30 dB), they suggest an upper limit of 35-40 dB rather than a relative limit of 5 dB above ambient.

Their recommendation of 43 dB at night obviously applies to the noisier places, being meant as a lower maximum to allow sleep.

They also suggest that noise will not be a problem at a distance farther than 500 m, or just over 1,500 feet. (Note, however, the U.K. Noise Association's recommendation of a minimum distance of one mile from residences and the French Academy of Medicine's similar recommendation of 1.5 km.)

The 500 m limit is considered later (section 5.12) to also apply for shadow flicker, but they also state that flicker may still be a problem at a distance of 10 times the rotor diameter.

And here's an odd directive for maintaining "visual amenity": "Rotors should be kept rotating ..." (section 6.13) As many people have suggested, the generator acts as a motor if more electricity comes in than goes out, and that turbines are often seen turning with only a slight breeze. It has been suggested that it looks better to have them turning ...

Also in the same section: "Nacelles and towers should be kept clear of leakage from internal fluids." That suggests, of course, that leaks are common.

More (section 6.15): "Decommissioning should involve the removal of all of the aboveground elements of the wind energy development and making good of the site, with the possible exception of roads and tracks where some further use can be found for them and this is approved by the planning authority. Foundation pads can be covered with local soil and left for natural re-vegetation, although they should be re-sodded in highly exposed locations." A reminder that "restoration" of the site means leaving several tons of cement and steel right below the surface. That is the usual provision in the U.S. as well.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism

Interview about organics disappointing

Guest editorial about Salon article (click title):

This guy is the classic American capitalist dolt. He thinks everything is going swimmingly, and if Americans don't have a "languid Mediterranean culture" and are always in a rush and everyone in the family has to work just to scrape by or to buy lots of stuff, and families don't eat together, and Starbucks' McDonald's-like sterility and sameness invades every street corner, that's fine by him. Hey, we are rushed Americans and so what? Ain't life grand in busy-land? He's a modern guy, who cares about those old finger-wagging fogies nattering on about homecooked meals of real food? We aren't time-wasting Europeans, after all! Because you can now routinely get mesclun and good coffee, he surmises that Americans eat better and society is improving. Why then is obesity and diabetes on the rise? Why is there more junk food around than ever before? Do average Americans really eat that much organic food, or even recognize many healthful foods like kale or mustard greens, for example? Just look at the terrible school lunches most American kids eat (even though they are supposedly being improved, they don't seem to have changed significantly) and the junk that they bring from home in their lunchboxes. It's not that their parents don't care; it's that they really don't seem to know what nutritious food is. And there are people in this country who go hungry for lack of food. Food pantries and soup kitchens are serving more people, not less. And why would Mr. Arugula continue to buy Jif peanut butter if he could choose organic peanut butter? Peanuts are one of the most heavily pesticided crops there are. People are free to eat what they like -- the problem is that these pesticides are poisoning the planet, which means all of us. There's no reason for an unnecessary product like Jif to even exist. Organics shouldn't be just a consumer choice, it's about the bigger picture. And why is it acceptable that it's actually abnormal to have a family that cooks its own real food everyday and eats it together? Families like that aren't busy enough!! If you have time to make meals from scratch and eat in a civilized manner by candlelight, you don't have enough to do or are just an old person out of touch with progress! Apparently Americans should have more important activities than routinely cooking real meals and then sitting down together to enjoy the food, the company and conversation.

We need to try to be more like those more "languid" cultures; not simply dismiss the idea that this society could ever change or that it is even a desirable thing to evolve. This country isn't doing too well right now, on many different levels, but apparently this "Arugula" guy hasn't noticed. People do die from overwork, from relentless stress, from eating tons of meat and crappy junk foods that pass as meals. The fracturing of family life has made this society more sterile, shallow, alienating and even more violent. Many kids seem to barely have any connection to their parents and many parents seem to avoid their kids. It isn't like this in most of the rest of the world, not to the extent it is here anyway. In most other societies, there is still a true relationship and respect between the generations and some of this is because those families eat together, and not in a big rush.

It's true that there is more produce and usually some tofu available in most American markets now. But there are plenty of people shopping at markets where it really isn't so different from stores in the 1960s, with little or no organic produce to speak of. Maybe there is now a bit of chard and kale, but it is always pesticided. And organics are definitely expensive, even if they are worth it, so many people can't afford to buy them regularly. But it is a whole sea change that needs to take place -- people cooking their own healthy meals, growing some of their own vegetables if possible, working less if possible, slowing down, educating themselves about pesticides, GMOs and the cruel folly of meat-eating. This will not happen easily. But it is tiresome to see someone glamorizing lethal American busyness and the endless crap that envelops this ugly nation. If we were really improving, there'd be lots of real cafes with distinct identities not owned by corporations serving good coffee, not just boring Starbucks selling overpriced treats. Starbucks is not progress. Maybe people could figure out that they could make their own superb coffee at home and carry it with them, resist advertising and stop automatically supporting every corporate giant that comes along.

Wind facility refused in Kilbraney, Ireland

An Bord Pleanála
Proposed development:  Construction of a windfarm consisting of 17 number wind turbines (hub height 80 metres, blade diameter 82 metres), electrical tail station and control building, construction of new, and extension of existing internal site tracks and associated works at Kilbraney in the townlands of Kilbraney, Coolboy, Kayle, Ballynamona, Ballyliamgow, Bryanstown, Tinnarath and Ballygarvan, County Wexford.

Decision

REFUSE permission for the above proposed development based on the reasons and considerations set out below.

1. Having regard to the location of the site in an area of mainly flat and undulating farmland characterised by a patchwork of fields delineated by hedgerows of varying size and with an extansive scattering of houses, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason the scale of the individual turbine units and the spatial extent and layout of the windfarm, would conflict with the Wind Energy Development Guidelines issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in June, 2006, would give rise to visual clutter in an attractive rural area and would be unduly prominent when seen from residential properties in the vicinity. The proposed development would be visually obtrusive, would seriously injure the amenities of property within and surrounding the windfarm and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ...

Dated this 14th day of September 2006.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Ireland

Letter made false claims about wind energy

To the editor, Barre-Montpelier (Vt.) Times-Argus:

The only thing "inexhaustible" about industrial wind power appears to be its advocates' insistence that it has any value at all to justify desecrating wild places and destroying rural communities.

The Sept. 17 letter from Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association attempts to claim that wind does in fact displace other sources of energy. He does so by citing a paper that says it will. Why doesn't he cite a paper that says it has, e.g., in Denmark, Spain, or Germany, where wind energy is well established? The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any such paper.

The industry continues to fantasize about future success, despite an ongoing record that shows no benefits from wind energy at all. "Errors of fact and omission" are their stock in trade.

It's no wonder, then, that opposition to this destructive boondoggle only grows. The "errors" of industrial-scale wind energy are increasingly hard to deny.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

"Why do you hate America?"

Mickey Z. writes in Counterpunch, "Why I Hate America; and Why I'm Not Leaving":

When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America -- with justification.

Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.

I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"

Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."

Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.

There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate . . . we will never create something that can be loved.

The Persians

From The Persians, by Aeschylus (472 BC), translation by Seth G. Benardete:

For these my son, exacting as requital Punishment (or so he thought) Called on himself so numerous A train of woes. --Queen They, invading Greece, felt no awe, They did not hesitate to plunder images Of gods, and put temples to the torch; Altars were no more, and statues, like trees, Were uprooted, torn from their bases In all confusion. Thus their wickedness Shall no less make them suffer: Other woes the future holds in store, And still the fount of evils is not quenched, It wells up, and overflows: so great will be The sacrificial cake of clotted gore Made at Plataea by Dorian spear. And corpses, piled up like sand, shall witness, Mute, even to the century to come, Before the eyes of men, that never, being Mortal, ought we cast our thoughts too high. Insolence, once blossoming, bears Its fruit, a tasseled field of doom, from which A weeping harvest's reaped, all tears. --Darius

An unseemly campaign

"VPIRG faces a good old-fashioned conflict of interest, just the sort of thing it was organized to protect us from."

Editorial by C.B. of the Barton (Vt.) Chronicle:

As its name implies, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) is founded on the principle that, beyond the competing interests that run our society and control our lives, there is a public interest that is all too often neglected.

... Using weapons no more powerful than a knack for publicity and an ability to bring vocal citizens into the halls of government and, more rarely, onto the streets, VPIRG has brought the public to the table on a long series of important issues.

And then there's wind power. ...

Late last month VPIRG announced that, in a "report card" on the efforts of northeastern states and provinces to combat global warming, Vermont's grade has slipped from a C to a C-minus.

The reason, VPIRG Field Director Drew Hudson said in a press release, was clear:

Governor Jim Douglas has failed to keep his promises on energy, and "as a result Vermont lags behind our neighbors in permitting commercial wind power and developing a comprehensive climate change action plan." ...

According to the report [the product of 18 environmental organizations in the Northeast], Vermont's "grader" was the Vermont Public Interest Research and Education Fund. The phone number it lists is VPIRG's number in Montpelier.

Two years ago, VPIRG said that 15 percent of Vermont's electricity should be generated in-state by windmills.

Earlier last month in its "Vision for Vermont's Energy Future" VPIRG increased that to 20 percent. ...

In a chapter called "Profile of a Vermont Windfarm" it gives a glowing account of UPC Vermont's plans to erect 26 wind turbines in Sheffield and Sutton.

It notes that "voters in Sheffield, where 20 of the 26 turbines will be located, voted by a strong majority in favor of the project (120-93)."

It fails to note that Sutton residents voted six to one against the proposal at their Town Meeting in March. ...

The problem lies on VPIRG's board of directors. Two members, Matt Rubin and David Rapaport, are the principals in East Haven Windfarm, the company that wants to put four demonstration wind towers on East Mountain and, ultimately, erect 50 windmills on the ridge lines of Essex County.

Mr. Rubin, president of East Haven Windfarm, is former chairman of the VPIRG board. Mr. Rapaport, Windfarm's vice president, is VPIRG's former executive director. ...

So it's not about the public interest, after all. VPIRG faces a good old-fashioned conflict of interest, just the sort of thing it was organized to protect us from. ...

In positioning itself as the chief cheerleader for wind power in Vermont, VPIRG has tarnished its own reputation. It may even, in the long run, harm the cause of wind power.

... VPIRG needs to do what it can to fix the problem, but it's pretty late in the game. Rather than purge its board, maybe it should just withdraw from the wind power debate, and leave the field to those whose arguments won't carry even a whiff of conflicted interests.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont, ecoanarchism

Larger picture does not include industrial wind power

To the editor, Burlington (Vt.) Free Press:

Jan Blittersdorf, whose company counts on expanding development of industrial wind power, reminds us that we need a thoughtful and productive discussion of the issue ("Wind discussion must see larger picture," September 11). She then proceeds to shamelessly misrepresent the impacts of wind energy on the electricity generation of Denmark, Germany, and Spain.

It is one thing to say that wind turbines generate a certain percentage of a country's total. It is quite another to say that wind turbines displace that percentage of generation from or fuel use by other sources. Apparently, the latter can not be said about Denmark, Germany, and Spain, the world's leaders in wind energy. Those countries have lots of wind turbines, but none have been able to point to any actual benefits from them (except, of course, to those in the business).

The wind industry thus boasts of achieving a goal that means nothing to the larger picture that Blittersdorf reminds us to keep in mind. The turbines are built, but -- because of the intermittent, variable, and unpredictable nature of their production -- other fuels are still used as much as before. The wind turbines therefore do not reduce carbon dioxide or any other emissions.

There are other renewables that have actual promise. We shouldn't waste our time and money -- let alone sacrifice our mountaintops and rural communities -- on the boondoggle of big wind.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Spain ends support of wind power

Abstract of article (available only in print) in the September Windpower Monthly:

Twin pillars of Spanish wind market axed -- decree removes wind subsidy and price guarantee

The legal basis of the production incentives driving Spain's wind market is now time bombed to disappear in the new year thanks to a new energy law, put together behind the industry's back and passed by government emergency decree. The law will remove the twin pillars supporting the market—a production incentive payment and the safety net of a guaranteed minimum purchase price. Confidence in the Spanish wind market, one of the world's top three, is "shattered" says an industry spokesman. "Projects that should have closed in the past few weeks have been paralysed and others annulled."

Emergency decree -- looks like the government is seeing wind power for the fiasco it is.

wind power, wind energy

Charles Komanoff is two with nature

Charles Komanoff rhapsodizes again on "the increasing viability of commercial-scale wind power" and the beauty and need that this unproven belief inspires him to see. His long article, meant to look reasoned, thorough, and balanced, in the September-October issue of Orion has been getting a lot of notice. But it's just more of the same misguided and misinformed pablum he has already foisted on readers many times elsewhere.

First, to make defense of a single ridgeline from industrial wind development look puny, he proposes replacing three-fourths of the electricity in the U.S. (the portion generated from fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas) with wind-generated energy. He pretends to admit that his figure of 400,000 2.5-megawatt turbines to achieve this goal is hypothetical. In fact, it totally ignores reality. Without large-scale storage, wind cannot -- even in theory -- provide three-fourths of our electricity. It can only provide as much power as there is excess capacity on the system from other sources to cover for it when the wind drops. One-third of the time, a wind turbine is typically idle. Forty percent of the time, it produces at well below its average rate. By its nature, it can't replace other sources on the grid, which must work all the harder to balance the fluctuations of the wind.

Then he pretends a concern for birds, evoking the disgrace of Altamont Pass only to dismiss it as an aberration rather than a warning. He raises the myth that "the longer blades on newer turbines rotate more slowly and thus kill far fewer birds." But as he himself notes, it isn't the faster-rpm smaller turbines that are the reason for Altamont's toll on raptors -- it's the fact that it is in a major flyway. The fact is that the longer blades on newer turbines are just as deadly. They rotate at a lower rate, but because the blades are so long they are moving just as fast (150-200 mph). And those giant blades sweep a vertical air space of 1 to 2 acres.

As he has done before, Komanoff tries to minimize the undeniable noise of the giant rotating machines with gearboxes the size of a van. But first, describing his visit to the Fenner facility in New York, he again betrays his ignorance of the technology:

It was windy that day, though not unusually so, according to the locals. All twenty-seven turbines were spinning, presumably at their full 1.5-megawatt ratings.

Wind turbines are designed to spin even before they start producing electricity as the wind speed approaches around 7 mph. This is done by drawing power from the grid until there's enough wind to do it. Although the rotational rate of the blades remains constant, the turbine does not produce at its full capacity until the wind speed reaches around 30 mph.

Ignoring the fact that the machines were obviously far from their noisiest state, Komanoff, used to the unceasing roar of Manhattan, not surprisingly finds them "relatively quiet." At distances between 100 and 2,000 feet from a tower, he takes noise readings ranging from 64 down to 45 decibels. Remember that the turbines were not as loud as they are with a full wind and that the noise continues -- and is carried farther -- at night.

Noise is the most common complaint wherever giant wind turbines are erected. It is indeed relative. In rural places, a noise level of 25 decibels is normal at night. A level of 45 decibels is perceived as four times as loud, 65 decibels as 16 times louder. And the additional noise is not natural but a rhythmic mechanical noise. There is also a low-frequency aspect to the noise that seriously affects a significant proportion of people. As pointed out elsewhere, Charles Komanoff doesn't know the sounds of nature, let alone the quiet of a rural night.

Komanoff also resumes his attacks on Green Berkshires, the environmental group in Massachusetts suing the state to protect the undeveloped Hoosac Range from French and Scottish energy companies. He pretends to acknowledge the group's contention that "wind turbines are enormously destructive to the environment" but accuses them of not making "the obvious comparison to the destructiveness of fossil fuel–based power."

A tired trick, Mr. K, but the issue is industrial-scale wind power. The obvious response you need -- and are unable to muster -- is the evidence that it provides actual substantial benefits that make development of wild mountaintops necessary. The destructiveness of fossil fuels does not in itself justify the destructiveness of industrial wind power.

Thus unable to disprove the arguments from Green Berkshires that wind energy is ineffective as well as unenvironmental, he changes the subject again to that of climate change, claiming to find "no mention at all of the climate crisis, let alone wind power's potential to help avert it" on anti-wind websites. Yet he notes that many opponents argue that wind power displaces little, if any, fossil fuel burning. He even quotes Green Berkshires concerning the climate crisis, that "global warming [and] dependence on fossil fuels ... will not be ameliorated one whit by the construction of these turbines on our mountains." Similarly, National Wind Watch, a network of groups throughout the country and the world, says in one of its FAQs:

Do you deny global warming?

Not at all. We recognize, however, that wind power has and will ever have only the most minimal ability to mitigate the human causes of global warming.

Komanoff calls such "notions" "mistaken," despite their being backed by solid evidence (see the "Key Documents" page on National Wind Watch's website). His own "notions" of wind power's benefits have not beeen shown to actually occur anywhere. Despite substantial wind power installation on the grids of several countries (i.e., Denmark, Germany, and Spain), there is no corresponding record of reduced use of other fuels. That's the simple fact. Ladling on patronizing indulgence while insisting that "the greater good" requires local sacrifice can not hide the fact that the benefits remain only a fantasy.

And again, our K evokes real environmentalist David Brower (who is dead and can't protest this abuse), twisting the defense of wilderness to justify trammeling it because of the threat of global warming. This is just like George Bush trashing the Constitution to protect it from "Islamic fascist terror." It is not just wrong, it is truly frightening. Unable to show any effect of industrial wind on global warming, Komanoff finally throws off the shackles of reason.

He closes with reference to Yuriko Saito and the aesthetic chic of industrial wind turbines and to David Orr and the necessary ugliness that is in fact beauty on a "higher order." The destruction of nature and communities for an idea -- a "notion" that is easily shown to be wrong -- Komanoff calls an act of love.

He wants it to be so. The strength of his belief justifies it. Reality be damned. The natural world doesn't stand a chance with "friends" like Charles Komanoff.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Correction

From Ironic Times:

Last week we mistakenly reported that President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, a tyrannical ruler who has banned opposition parties, intimidated the press and been accused by U.S. prosecutors of pocketing millions in bribes from an American businessman, has been invited to visit with President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. In fact, he's been invited to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine. We apologize for the error.

National Wind Watch

National Wind Watch, by the way, is back on line, now at www.wind-watch.org.

The new site features a set of Fast Facts, Key Documents, News Watch, a Resource Library, publications helpful to campaigners, and more. It is still being worked on, so keep checking back for additional features and material.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

The psychopathology of ATVs

From The Twilight of Mechanized Lumpenleisure, by James Howard Kunstler:

The demoralization of the American public, and especially of the economic lower orders proceeded remorselessly from the 1980s on and became focused on two very pernicious ideas: first the belief that it was possible to get something for nothing, and second the belief that when you wish upon a star your dreams come true. ...

Now, the trouble with this kind of demoralizing belief system is that most adult human beings realize at some level that it is at odds with the way the universe works, that it is an edifice of lies -- just as the suburban housing developments were an edifice of lies about an enduring way of life, and a maxed-out collection of credit cards was a lie about one’s personal finances. Their own sensed moral failures aroused in Americans a welter of negative emotion including guilt, shame, unworthiness, powerlessness, terror, and ultimately anger over having to feel these unpleasant emotions, and they expressed their anger by striking out against nature, employing the very machines that defined the terms of their existence, the automobile and its spawn: monster trucks, motorcycles, dune buggies, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, and gigantic motorboats whose chief attractions were their power to negate the scale of the average freshwater lake while making enormous amounts of noise. These were people who no longer felt comfortable, or even ontologically present in the world, unless engines of some kind were ringing in their ears. Their assault on the landscape of America completed the destruction that suburbia had left unfinished. And as the cheap oil, which made the whole exercise possible, fades into history with the global oil production peak upon us, America was reduced to a nation of tattooed, overfed clowns in paramilitary drag, pretending to be powerful and good.

Wind turbine noise is serious health issue

The Noise Association of the U.K. recently produced a study of wind turbines. The 3.8-MB PDF is available on National Wind Watch's new web site at www.wind-watch.org.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism

The Israeli soldiers were caught IN Lebanon

What Really Happened  has gathered several news reports lest the world forget that Hezbollah did not "invade" Israel to "kidnap" two soldiers. The soldiers were in fact in Lebanon, obviously aiming to provoke the the very disastrous war that they then blamed on Hezbollah. In summary:

Israel sent troops across the border into Lebanon. They then claimed the captured invaders were "kidnap victims" and launched their attacks.

The imagined airline bombings

Craig Murray writes from the U.K. about the obvious charade of the massive new terror plot that Bush and Blair hoped would salvage some of their delusional paranoia while Israel's effort to draw Iran into war so quickly turned into a predictable disaster.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year -- like thousands of other British Muslims. ... Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. ... As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity. ...

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes -- which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth. ...

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shoveled. ...

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. ... Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few -- just over two per cent of arrests -- who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do with terrorism, but of some minor offence the police happened upon while trawling through the wreckage of the lives they had shattered.

Eighty hectares of low scrub and pine burn in a fire between Pétrola and Corral Rubio

From El Verdad, Albacete, Spain [translation from Spanish]:

www.laverdad.es

Mount Albaceteño brought a new fright yesterday. An aerogenerator in the Anorias Wind Facility in Pétrola began to burn at four in the afternoon and started a forest fire in the area known as La Cuerda.

As the Mayor of Pétrola, Juan Gómez, described it to this newspaper, the strong winds made the fire spread quickly. ...

Around eight in the evening the fire was brought under control, although the reserve of firemen remained some time more to cool the ground and prevent the fire being revived by the wind. ...

In the end, according to both mayors, and initial official estimates, between eighty and a hundred hectares [200-250 acres] of low scrub and pine were burned.

According to sources from the Castilla/La Mancha firefighters, the effort to extinguish the fire required four teams with four firetrucks, two airplanes carrying dirt, and a helicopter with another team. Two Sepei (Provincial Firefighting Service) trucks also participated.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism

Israel targets civilians

Hezbollah targets civilians. Israel does not. Yet for every 3 Israeli civilians killed by the unaimed rockets of Hezbollah, 100 Lebanese civilians have been killed by the precisely targeted missiles of Israel. Who is terrorizing whom? All for 2 soldiers who wandered over the border and were caught.

The language of the demented can not substitute for the facts of their actions.

Sacred view threatened on Lewis

Every 18 years, the moon is reborn on Scotland's island of Lewis, rising from between the knees of the Old Woman of the Moors, Cailleach na Mointeach. The ancient Callanish stones mark this cyclic event -- the resynchronization of lunar and solar time, the "golden year" that Catholicism still uses to date Easter -- and now a 16-foot-diameter cairn has been discovered near the hills that are the Cailleach's knees. That could prevent the construction of some of the giant wind turbines proposed for the island moors (never mind that disruption of peat by the turbines' erections would release so much carbon it would cancel any possible benefits for 25 years (should they last that long)). Needless to say, the turbines would stand in the way of this view that has been sacred for thousands of years.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines, environment, environmentalism

Another wind lease

Here is what we mean by a "wind power facility," as defined in a Clinton County, N.Y., lease option from Zilkha Renewable Energy (now owned by Goldman Sachs and called Horizon Wind Energy):

(a) wind machines, wind energy conversion systems and wind power generating facilities (including associated towers, foundations, support structures, braces and other structures and equipment), and other power generation facilities to be operated in conjunction with wind turbine installations, in each case of any type or technology (collectively, "Generating Units"; (b) transmission facilities, including overhead and underground transmission, distributin and collector lines, wires and cables, conduit, footings, foundations, facilities, circuit breakers and transformers, and and energy storage facilities; (c) overhead and underground control, communicatins and radio relay systems and telecommunications measurement equipment; (e) roads and erosion control facilities; (f) control, maintenance and administration buildings; (g) utility installations; (h) laydown areas and maintenance yards; (i) signs; (j) fences and other safety and protection facilities; and (k) other improvements, facilities, appliances, machinery and equipment in any way related to or associated with any of the foregoing (all of the foregoing, including the Generating Units, collectively, "Wind Power Facilities").

That Zilkha lease also includes the usual easements for "audio, visual, view, light, flicker, noise, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, electrical and radio frequency interference, and any other effects attributable to any Project or Operations," and the lessor (the property owner) or "any Related Person of Lessor" shall not

(i) interfere with or impair (A) the free, unobstructed and natural availability, accessibility, flow, frequency, speed or direction of air or wind over and across the Property (whether by planting trees, constructing building or other structures, or otherwise) or (B) the lateral or subjacent support for the Wind Power Facilities or (ii) engage in any other activity on the Property or elswhere; in each case that might cause a decrease in the output or efficiency of Lessee's or an Sublessee's Generating Units.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms

U.K. Noise Association: 1 mile setback needed for wind turbines

Press release from the U.K. Noise Association:

July 26th 2006

Within weeks of the Government's Energy Review proposing that planning controls be relaxed to speed up the introduction of wind farms, a new report reveals that badly-sited wind turbines can cause real noise problems for local communities.

In compiling its report, the Noise Association carried out a comprehensive review of the research done into wind farm noise. It found that the stress and annoyance some people experience as a result of noise from wind farms is made worse by the flicker effect created by the rotating blades of the turbines. The report concluded that this was the most likely reason why wind farm noise generates many more complaints than equivalent noise levels from other sources. The Noise Association research found that wind turbine noise can be a particular problem in rural areas, where many of the wind farms are sited, because of low background noise levels.

The report, however, does not come out against the building of wind farms. It argues that 'sensible siting' of wind farms can overcome most noise problems: "It's all about location, location, location." John Stewart, the author of the report, said, "It would be a mistake to see this as an anti-wind farm report. But there is a real danger that, in the enthusiasm to embrace clean technology, legitimate concerns about noise are being brushed aside."

The report recommends that:

• as a general rule turbines should not be sited within a mile of where people live


• the official government guidelines for the siting of wind farms be revised to take account of the more intrusive nature of the noise in areas where the overall background noise is low


• there be a clear and public recognition by the Wind Power Industry, which has tended to dismiss noise as an issue, that wind farms can cause real noise problems for some people. The report argues that this could open the door to "constructive discussion"

[Similarly, the French Academy of Medicine recommends a setback of 1.5 km (see "French Academy of Medicine warns of wind turbine noise"). For more about the growing evidence that industrial wind turbines cause vibroacoustic disease, see Nina Pierpont's new web site.]

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, wind turbines

Vermont Department of Public Service testifies against proposed wind power facility

[PRESS RELEASE]

July 29, 2006

RIDGE PROTECTORS

"It is like a dream come true," said Greg Bryant, a member of the Ridge Protectors, an organization opposing a proposed wind project in the Northeast Kingdom. "The Vermont Department of Public Service has filed testimony opposing UPC's application to build industrial wind turbines on the undeveloped ridge lines of Sheffield and Sutton, Vermont." "This testimony is reassuring and historic for the protection of Vermont 's pristine mountain tops," said Bryant.

The Department's testimony had several significant findings that could well lead the Public Service Board to deny a certificate of Public Good to the UPC wind developers. Noting that the place where the project is to be built is defined as a Rural area in the regional plan and given the undeveloped nature of the site and the large size of the proposed project "the turbines will be out of scale and out of character with the surrounding area." For this reason, the department believes that the proposal is inconsistent with the land use provision of the regional plan.

Another significant fact in the Department testimony is the finding that the proposed project does not conform to the orderly development of the region, an element necessary to comply with the Regional Plan. Citing the recent establishment of the King George School the department states, "The area is ripe with private education facilities built upon the business model of private tuition for educational purposes." The testimony then goes on to state that this tradition is both very old and very young and goes on to site specific examples: Lyndon Institute, St. Johnsbury Academy, the Riverside Day School, St. Paul's Catholic School, Sterling College, and the King George School.

Recognizing the economic impact of this tradition on the regional community, the department goes on to note the specific financial impact that the King George School has on the local community. According to Karen Fitzhugh, the school currently employs 47 full-time staff with a payroll of 1.2 million dollars and spends 750,000 dollars within the regional community. The school has made it clear that if the wind development takes place, they might well have to close the school. "A payroll of the size of this school's is a very significant economic generator for northern Caledonia County ... the risks of the school's demise, in my opinion, could outweigh the benefits of the proposed wind generation project," said Robert Ide in his testimony to the Board.


Probably the most significant finding in the Department's pre-filed testimony addressing project aesthetics is its conclusion that the UPC wind project will have an undue adverse impact on the surrounding natural and visual environment. Specifically, if built, the project might unreasonably interfere with the public's use and enjoyment of Crystal Lake State Park . This finding alone could force this whole project to be reviewed under the Quechee test which might be very difficult for this project to meet. "All of these findings will make it very difficult for this project to move forward," said Bryant. "We have opposed this project for a long time for all the right reasons," Bryant said, "it is wonderful to have the state join our efforts to preserve the natural beauty of these ridgelines."

Ridge Protectors is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to preserving Vermont's undeveloped ridgelines. There are over 250 members of Ridge Protectors, based in Sheffield, Vermont.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, Vermont

Wind power won't replace Vermont Yankee

The July 24 Times Argus (Montpelier & Barre, Vt.) reported on a campaign event in Putney for Bernie Sanders (running for U.S. Senate) and Peter Welch (running for U.S. House). Besides expressing his impatience with those calling for Bush et al.'s impeachment (not to mention conviction and ouster) (and which the Vermont Democrats had a chance to instigate but then backed off), Sanders spoke to the understandably strongly anti-nuclear crowd about the nearby plant:

Sanders said he had been opposed to the increased power production at the Vernon plant, and he was opposed to extending its federal operating license beyond 2012, when it is due to expire.

That statement drew the largest applause of the evening.

But Sanders said that if Vermont Yankee was shut down, Vermont had to find alternative sources of electricity -- and soon. Sanders said he was a strong supporter of wind energy ...

There's the rub. Vermont Yankee provides a third of the electricity used in Vermont. That's an average load of about 215 megawatts (forget about how much it is likely to have increased by 2012). By the productivity record of the Searsburg wind power facility (average output of 21% capacity), it would require 1,024 megawatts of wind power to produce that average load. That's over 500 turbines of the size currently proposed in Sheffield and Sutton (26 400-feet-high 2-megawatt machines over 3 ridges).

But unlike the steady supply from Vermont Yankee, the energy from wind would be intermittent and variable and would rarely coincide with actual demand. For planning purposes, most grid managers (as in a recent New York study) assume an effective capacity for wind of one-third its average output. That is, Vermont would actually need to plan to erect 3,072 megawatts of wind -- more than 1,500 Sheffield-size turbines -- to replace the energy we use from Vermont Yankee.

But that still wouldn't be enough. The assumption of effective capacity only applies when the penetration of wind is well within the excess capacity of the system, when the unpredictable load from wind can be adequately balanced. Once the system has to rely on wind to actually meet demand -- as in attempting to replace a base load provider of a third of Vermont's electricity needs -- wind power's effective capacity starts heading towards zero. This has been found independently by Irish and German government studies.

In other words, when wind capacity exceeds the capacity of other sources on the system to cover for it, its true value is revealed. If you could cover the hills with giant strobe-lit wind turbines, along with their roads, transformers, and high-voltage power lines, you would still be using the same sources as before to get your electricity. Only the lazy, insane, and greedy could support such a destructive boondoggle.

Closing down Vermont Yankee would benefit all of us, but industrial wind isn't what's going to make that possible.

wind power, wind energy, Vermont, environment, environmentalism

Amazing disconnect at Conservation Law Foundation

The July 26 newsletter from New England's Conservation Law Foundation reports that a Vermont judge ruled that construction of the "circumferential highway" ("the Circ") around Burlington must remain halted until an adequate environmental review is completed. The CLF "has opposed the Circ since 2002, arguing that the highway will not solve transportation problems in the area. Instead, the Circ will cause more sprawl and more pollution."

The newsletter also hails the Massachusetts Senate endorsement of the Massachusetts Ocean Act to "govern development activities and foster environmentally sustainable uses of marine resources in Massachusetts waters while protecting public trust resources." As the CLF notes,

Recent proposals for liquefied natural gas terminals, sand and gravel mining, desalinization plants, gas pipelines, telecommunications cables, tidal and wind energy facilities have raised numerous concerns among local, state and federal agencies, and the general public about how to manage the diversity of uses and the impacts of this intensified development pressure on the marine ecosystem. [emphasis added]

But the CLF is also sad, because inadequate environmental review, like that keeping the Circ on hold, as well as numerous concerns among the general public about the impacts of development pressure, like those in Massachusetts' ocean, has caused the denial of a permit to erect four giant wind turbines on East Mountain in the wilds of northeast Vermont.

The project will not solve energy or pollution problems in the area and will instead cause more sprawl and visual pollution.

CLF has clearly, insanely, taken the wrong side on the issue of industrial wind power.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism, Vermont

Wind project thrown out in West Virginia

Word comes from West Virginia that the state Public Service Commission (PSC) has thrown out an application to erect 50 giant wind turbines (400 feet tall, 2 megawatts each, sprawling along 6.5 miles of ridgelines) on Jack Mountain. Congratulations, Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County and Citizens for Responsible Windpower !

The application by Liberty Gap Wind Force, a subsidiary of U.S. Wind Force, represented by notorious coal lobbyist Frank Maisano, was rejected because the company would not allow an independent hydrology consultant on the proposed site.

Wind Force claims that they required a liability waiver to allow the hydrologist on the site, but Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County noted that they had allowed PSC staff on the site without such a waiver. The PSC recognized it as a delaying tactic and "unreasonable and contrary to the public interest." They also cited "repeated unreasonable behavior."

Hearings were scheduled to begin next month but have now been canceled.

wind power, wind energy, wind farms, environment, environmentalism

Hezbollah did not venture into Israel

Thanks to Sam Smith's Progressive Review, we now know that the claim that Hezbollah went into Israel to kidnap 2 soldiers is yet another lie. The soldiers were arrested for illegally entering southern Lebanon, and bombing by Israel was already in progress.

July 12, Hindustan Times:
The Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. "Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon," a statement by Hezbollah said. "The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place," it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they "infiltrated" into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border.

July 12, Bahrain News Agency:
The Lebanese Hezbollah movement announced Wednesday the arrest of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were arrested as they entered the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border. Israeli aircraft were active in the air over southern Lebanon, police said, with jets bombing roads leading to the market town of Nabatiyeh, 60 kilometers south of Beirut.

July 12, Yahoo:
According to the Lebanese police force, the two soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aïta Al-Chaab close to the border, whereas Israeli television indicated that they had been captured in Israeli territory.

Blasted by a missile on the road to safety

From The Guardian (U.K.):

Family ordered to flee were targeted because they were driving minivan


The ambulanceman gave Ali the job of keeping his mother alive. The 12-year-old did what he could. "Mama, mama, don't go to sleep," he sobbed, gently patting her face beneath her chin. Behind her black veil, her eyelids were slowly sinking. "I'm going to die," she sighed. "Don't say that, mama," Ali begged, and then slid to the ground in tears.

On the pavement around mother and son were the other members of the Sha'ita family, their faces spattered with each other's blood. All were in varying shades of shock and injury. A tourniquet was tied on Ali's mother's arm. A few metres away, his aunt lay motionless, the white T-shirt beneath her abaya stained red. Two sisters hugged each other and wept, oblivious to the medics tending their wounds. "Let them take me, let them take me," one screamed.

Their mother was placed on a stretcher, and lifted into the ambulance. "God is with you, mama," Ali said. She reached up with her good arm to caress his face.

The Sha'itas had thought they were on the road to safety when they set out yesterday, leaving behind a village which because of an accident of geography -- it is five miles from the Israeli border - had seemed to make their home a killing ground. They had been ordered to evacuate by the Israelis. ...

Plumes of smoke rise in the distance, and the road in front of us offers up signs of closer peril: car wrecks, still smoking after Israeli strikes, and abandoned vehicles with shattered rear windows. Some were direct hits by Israeli aircraft. Others were drivers who had lost control. Overhead is the menacing roar of Israeli warplanes and the buzz of drones tracking every movement.

With bridges on the main coastal roads severed by Israeli air strikes, and secondary mountain routes scarred by craters, the means of escape for Lebanese trying to follow Israel's orders are limited. "All the smaller roads leading to the coastal roads are destroyed," said a spokesman for the UN in the border town of Naqoura. "In some areas you have people pushing cars by hand through obstacles made by a rocket or a bomb." By yesterday afternoon, for many villagers, there was truly no way out.

Death came crashing into the Sha'ita family soon after 10am, in the form of an Israeli anti-tank missile, seemingly fired from an Israeli helicopter high overhead, in Kafra, about nine miles from their home. Those passengers who were not killed or injured by shards of burning metal were hurt when the van plunged into the side of a hill.

In their village of et-Tiri, the Sha'itas were an extended clan of 54 people. Between them they had three cars. When the Israeli evacuation order came, in leaflets shot out of aircraft, the family planned at first to stay. "We were at home living our lives," said Musbah Sha'ita, Ali's uncle.

By 7pm on Saturday night, the deadline set by Israel for people in about a dozen villages in south Lebanon to leave, the Sha'itas were close to panic. "Whoever could run was running," said Mr Sha'ita. "I pushed them to go."

One of their fleeing neighbours said he would send transport for them, and the next morning all 54 of the Sha'itas set out in a convoy of three white minivans. That choice of transport proved a fatal mistake.

In their leaflet campaign, the Israelis have warned repeatedly they would consider minivans, trucks and motorcyles as targets. "The minivans are a target for Israel because they can take Katyusha rockets for Hizbullah, so they do not contemplate too long," the UN official said. "They just shoot it."

Dozens of others have met a similar fate as Israeli F-16 jet fighters and attack helicopters intensify a campaign meant to cut off the supply of Hizbullah rockets, and the movement of its fighters.

But Israel's offensive is being felt across a much wider swath of south Lebanon. The Lebanese Red Cross in Tyre said 10 cars carrying civilians and three or four motorcycles had been hit by Israeli missiles yesterday. Red Cross ambulances were no safer; a spokesman said an ambulance had narrowly escaped a missile near the village of el-Qlaile, south of the city. A number of the dead, including the three members of the Sha'ita family, remained trapped in their cars because it was too dangerous to retrieve their bodies. ...

Evil intent

"With a worldwide disaster looming just a few years ahead, it is a time of unrestrained corporate greed, false religiosity, moronic fecklessness, and evil intent in high places."

That's from the description by Thomas Pynchon of his new book, Against the Day, set in the years from 1893 to the early 1920s, which is scheduled to be published December 5.

Big difference between green tags and wind energy

Recently, the National Geographic Society and the New York Audubon society, like many companies, such as Whole Foods and Tom's of Maine, have claimed that they are buying "wind power." But in fact they are only buying "green tags."

Green tags represent the output of a renewable energy plant, such as an industrial wind power facility, and they can be sold in addition to the actual energy produced. They were invented by Enron to increase the possible sources of revenue for wind plants.

But buying green tags does not add renewable energy to the grid, because that energy was already sold to the grid.

As National Wind Watch board member Eric Rosenbloom says, "It's as if a grocery store sold a box of cereal to someone but keeps the box to sell later to someone else. The first customer gets the cereal (and the prize), and the second customer just gets the empty box. You can put it on your shelf and tell people you bought a box of cereal, but in fact you did not."

In buying green tags, an organization thereby supports wind energy projects by providing them with extra money. That is all that can be claimed. They are not buying wind energy -- neither for themselves nor for others.

wind power, wind energy, environment, environmentalism

Israel out of control

Here are some Israeli girls writing notes on missiles to the people of Lebanon.


And here's one of the recipients.



Alexander Cockburn has written an excellent background piece at Counterpunch about Israel's attack on Lebanon. He looks at the already forgotten history of a few weeks before Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.

... June 20, 2006, when Israeli aircraft fired at least one missile at a car in an attempted extrajudicial assassination attempt on a road between Jabalya and Gaza City. The missile missed the car. Instead it killed three Palestinian children and wounded 15.

Back we go again to June 13, 2006. Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a van in another attempted extrajudicial assassination. The successive barrages killed nine innocent Palestinians.

Now we're really in the dark ages, reaching far, far back to June 9, 2006, when Israel shelled a beach in Beit Lahiya killing 8 civilians and injuring 32.

That's just a brief trip down Memory Lane, and we trip over the bodies of twenty dead and forty-seven wounded, all of them Palestinians, most of them women and children.

Israel regrets . . . But no! Israel doesn't regret in the least. Most of the time it doesn't even bother to pretend to regret. It says, "We reserve the right to slaughter Palestinians whenever we want. We reserve the right to assassinate their leaders, crush their homes, steal their water, tear out their olive groves, and when they try to resist we call them terrorists intent on wrecking the 'peace process.'"

Now Israel says it wants to wipe out Hezbollah. It wishes no harm to the people of Lebanon, just so long as they're not supporters of Hezbollah, or standing anywhere in the neighborhood of a person or a house or a car or a truck or a road or a bus or a field, or a power station or a port that might, in the mind of an Israeli commander or pilot, have something to do with Hezbollah. ...

You can say that Israel brought Hezbollah into the world. You can prove it too, though this too involves another frightening excursion into history.

This time we have to go far, almost unimaginably far ... In 1982 Israel had a problem. Yasir Arafat, headquartered in Beirut, was making ready to announce that the PLO was prepared to sit down with Israel and embark on peaceful, good faith negotiations towards a two-state solution.

Israel didn't want a two-state solution, which meant -- if UN resolutions were to be taken seriously -- a Palestinian state right next door, with water, and contiguous territory. So Israel decided to chase the PLO right out of Lebanon. It announced that the Palestinian fighters had broken the year-long cease-fire by lobbing some shells into northern Israel.

Palestinians had done nothing of the sort. I remember this very well, because Brian Urquhart, at that time assistant secretary general of the United Nations, in charge of UN observers on Israel's northern border, invited me to his office on the 38th floor of the UN hq in mid-Manhattan and showed me all the current reports from the zone. For over a year there'd been no shelling from north of the border. Israel was lying.

With or without a pretext Israel wanted to invade Lebanon. So it did, and rolled up to Beirut. It shelled Lebanese towns and villages and bombed them from the air. Sharon's forces killed maybe 20,000 people, and let Lebanese Christians slaughter hundreds of Palestinian refugees in the camps of Sabra and Chatilla

The killing got so bad that even Ronald Reagan awoke from his slumbers and called Tel Aviv to tell Israel to stop. Sharon gave the White House the finger by bombing Beirut at the precise times -- 2:42 and 3:38 -- of two UN resolutions calling for a peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestine.

When the dust settled over the rubble, Israel bunkered down several miles inside Lebanese sovereign territory, which it illegally occupied, in defiance of all UN resolutions, for years, supervising a brutal local militia and running its own version of Abu Graibh, the torture center at the prison of Al-Khiam.

Occupy a country, torture its citizens and in the end you face resistance. In Israel's case it was Hezbollah, and in the end Hezbollah ran Israel out of Lebanon, which is why a lot of Lebanese regard Hezbollah not as terrorists but as courageous liberators.

The years roll by and Israel does its successful best to destroy all possibility of a viable two-state solution. It builds illegal settlements. It chops up Palestine with Jews-only roads. It collars all the water. It cordons off Jerusalem. It steals even more land by bisecting Palestinian territory with its "fence." Anyone trying to organize resistance gets jailed, tortured, or blown up.

Sick of their terrible trials, Palestinians elect Hamas, whose leaders make it perfectly clear that they are ready to deal on the basis of the old two-state solution, which of course is the one thing Israel cannot endure. ...

So here we are, 24 years after Sharon did his best to destroy Lebanon in 1982, and his heirs are doing it all over again. Since they can't endure the idea of any just settlement for Palestinians, it's the only thing they know how to do.